Wednesday, August 13, 2014

A judge from Bizarro World has issued a ruling...

...upholding Maryland's ban on guns shaped like "assault weapons" in which she described AR-15s as "unusual".

I think it's safe to say that "available at Walmart" is practically the opposite of "unusual".
.

18 comments:

TBeck said...

He's a she.

Tam said...

Yeah, I just found that out. I'd been reading chunks of the ruling and didn't bother to see who wrote that mess.

Reno Sepulveda said...

It's been apparent for awhile now that many judges just make this stuff up as they go. They pull their opinions out of thin air filtered through their politics just like the rest of us.

I'm reminded of those news reports from the Third World where the reporter looks all concerned and says something like. "Other than the military Diane, most people here have no faith in the government or any of it's institutions."

The only thing unusual about these rifles is the hoops people will jump through to obtain them. Especially in places like Maryland and California.

mikee said...

Hey, LEOs and retired LEOs can still own the 30 round magazines and the AR-15s, so the law is OK, right?

Because they are different than you or me, in that they are better and more deserving of constitutional protection.

I'd challenge the law under "equal protection" basis next and see where that goes.

newrebeluniv said...

And since Obama's election, it is quite possible they most popular rifle style in the country.

armedlaughing said...

The problem seems to be (in part) that many of the implements involved have complex names:
semiautomatic pistol aka 'automatic'
of (for the media) Glock,
or
semiautomatic, military-styled rifle vs. 'assault weapon'.
The media likes to dumb things down to their level.

gfa

docjim505 said...

Interesting legal argument. The ghosts of Hammurabi, Justinian, Coke and Blackstone must be looking on, nodding sagely and saying, "How'd we miss THAT concept???"

TBeck said...

Well, they HAVE to be unusual because none of the judge's friends owns one!

Jon said...

The AR is a very unusual looking rifle... if your basis for comparison is... maybe a musket.

Or a bolt action hunting rifle. Maybe. But I'm voting for Musket - thats all the founders were intending the rabble have access to. Muskets - after all. ;)

Kristophr said...

Interesting.

Methinks the second amendment protects a standard militia issue burst-fire M-4 more than is does Uncle Fudd's Remchester.

Matt said...

I beleive the judge is ruling from the concept that rights only exist as allowed and interepeted by the courts. The judge is not intrerested in all the civil rights, tough for the rest of the citizens.

Aaron said...

The sheer amount of deliberate obtuseness and purposeful evasion of reality in that opinion is most impressive.

On the upside, it's really a nice and ripe time for an appeal of such a shockingly bad decision.

Sidheshooter said...

"I think it's safe to say that "available at Walmart" is practically the opposite of "unusual"."

[/analysis]

billf said...

RE: what Sidheshooter (sp?) said.Good one,Tam.
Also,RE: Aaron,'deliberate obtuseness',excellent!!I want to work that into a conversation soon.

Ed said...

I believe that the word for "deliberate obtuseness" is "obfuscation".

John A said...

Judge, your gavel - as representative of authority - likely is more closely related to a "war" hatchet than to a hammer and also being far more unusual than even hatchets or hammers thus should be banned.
.
Oh my, any weapon designed with at least some thought given to its possible marketing as a weapon for military "offensive" use us eligible for a ban. I guess helmets, and possibly boots, are not considered weapons so are OK. But I cannot think of any knife or firearm that is not at least derived from a weapon for which [bulk] sale to government/military was a consideration.

Ted N said...

Pretty sure I heard Alan Gura start laughing.

Chris said...

I liked the part in which she opined that the semiauto version might be more deadly than the full auto. Or blathering about how many cops have been killed by AR-15s. My term for this is "aggressive ignorance." She really, really, doesn't want to know more about this subject than what Maryland's brief lies about.

My wife works for another judge in that District Court, and likes her as a person. She was quite upset with the language I used to describe how I felt about this opinion and the tool that wrote it.